State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs Shri Acharya Swami Ganesh Dass, Prop on 20 September, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: -20-09-2006 Appeal No. FA-752/2006 (Arising from the order dated 26-05-2006 passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.447/2005 ) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Appellant Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Through Janpath, Mr. Dinesh Agnani, New Delhi. Advocate. Versus Shri Acharya Swami Ganesh Dass, Prop., Respondent Sadhubella Prabu Ashram, Sadhu Bella Petha Dhishwar, 6/15, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) There is no need to give notice to the respondent as the matter is simple and can be decided in just and proper perspective and on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties made before the District Forum and the settled position of law and that too without reversing the impugned order or substantially varying or modifying the impugned order.
2. On account of failure of the appellant in not rectifying the defects in the telephone as and when complaints were made by the respondent organisation between the period from 17-08-2002 to 18-12-2002 the District Forum has vide its order dated 26th May, 2006 directed it to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Besides this the appellant was also directed to put an official on duty to check every alternate day if there was any trouble in the connection.
3. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the District Forum has proceeded on the premise that there was only one telephone in the area and has not taken into consideration the FNMR record and the Fault History produced by the appellant showing that the complaints were attended to as and when received and as such there was no deficiency in service.
4. We have seen the Fault History produced by the appellant. Complaint made on 30-07-2001 was attended to on 11-08-2001. However, in the history, subsequent complaints made intermittently four times in a month were attended to in two or three days. No Fault History was produced prior to July, 2003. The respondent had made as many as 12 complaints from 17-08-200 to 18-12-2002 and so much so he also sent his complaint to Government of India but no satisfactory redressal was made.
5. In modern time telephone is not a facility but is a necessity. If intermittent defects are found in the telephone and the consumer is required to make complaints 5 to 6 times in a month or even more than that and the fault persists continuously for two years or so, service providers like the MTNL cannot escape from the deficiency in service and the consumer suffers immensely because of non-availability of the facility of telephone at time when he needs most.
6. Deficiency in service as prescribed by Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
7. However, taking into consideration the Fault History and the FNMR record produced by the appellant, we deem that the amount of compensation awarded is not only on the higher side but the directions to the MTNL to put an official on duty to check every alternative day if there is trouble in the connection is unjustified as it is not in terms of the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. As regards the compensation, consumer is entitled to an amount as to the actual loss or injury suffered which includes the mental injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. In our view compensation of Rs.
15,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the respondent would meet the ends of justice. However, litigation charges are on the lower side and we raise it to Rs. 2,500/-.
9. As regards direction to put an official on duty to see every alternative day that if there is any trouble in the connection, such a direction is against the provisions of law and is not in terms of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Section 14 empowers the District Forum to issue order to the opposite party to do one or more of the things made therein. In case of deficiency in service the District forum is empowered to order for payment of such an amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.
10. Though it is the duty of the service provider to see that the telephone remains in working condition and in this regard as and when it receives complaints of defect it has to attend to it immediately. But by putting one official on duty for a particular consumer is not the intention or object of the Consumer Protection Act.
If such orders are passed then the whole staff of the department of MTNL would be on duty at the premises of every consumer or customer to see that the telephone functions properly. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act defect or deficiency can be ordered to be rectified but to order an official on duty to check the telephone of the customer every alternate day is neither practicable nor feasible nor is the requirement of the law. We therefore advice the District Fora to refrain from passing such orders.
11. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
12. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
14. Copy be sent to President of District Fora.
15. Announced on 20th September, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj